ON December 18, 2020, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down a historic ruling, announcing that it has jurisdiction to hear the case involving the Guyana/Venezuela border controversy. The ruling was widely celebrated by members of all sections of society in Guyana, as it paves the way for the World Court to hear the substantive case on the border controversy.

Two days after the landmark ruling, distinguished jurist and international public servant of Guyanese origin Dr Bertrand Ramcharan, in an opinion piece titled, “A reckless World Court decision on border controversy” carried by Stabroek News, offered a different opinion.
Dr Ramcharran contended in essence that the World Court “invented a land-boundary dispute” when it inserted the word ‘dispute’ in its ruling last Thursday, among other contentions.

It should be noted that the ICJ has not “invented a land-boundary dispute,” but it is Venezuela which did when in 1962 it suddenly repudiated the 1899 Arbitral Award.
Supporting his claim, Dr Ramcharran, in quoting from the ruling of the court which states, “Venezuela considers that the ‘subject matter of the Geneva Agreement is the territorial dispute, not the validity of the 1899 Award,” erroneously concludes that “the World Court has in effect given Venezuela a gift in holding that there is a ‘territorial dispute.’”

This claim is further from the truth. The court has merely noted the notorious fact that Venezuela claims the Essequibo based on its absurd theory that the 1899 Award is “null and void.”  That is the “dispute” that has haunted Guyana since its independence 54 years ago.
That was the precise reason for the 1966 Geneva Agreement: to resolve the controversy arising from Venezuela’s baseless contention.  And now, the matter is finally before the court, which will resolve it once and for all.

Dr. Ramcharan also makes much of the fact that the court uses the term ‘controversy’ as a synonym for the word ‘dispute,’ when he himself recognises that in international law, a dispute is merely “a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interests.”
So, is there an unfounded claim, couched in the word ‘dispute’, which amounted to the legal challenge, between Guyana and Venezuela on the 1899 Award’s validity and the border that it established? The answer of course is, yes. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have suffered for 54 years under the shadow of Venezuela’s illegitimate territorial claims.

Is Venezuela’s claim without any merit whatsoever? Again, the answer is a resounding, yes! Otherwise, our powerful neighbour would not be so afraid of losing the case, which explains why it has chosen not to participate.  Fortunately, the court made clear that it will still go ahead and make a binding decision that Venezuela cannot ignore.
Dr. Ramcharan also makes a big deal out of the court’s finding that its jurisdiction does not include “events that occurred after the signature of the Geneva Agreement” in 1966.  He concludes, again erroneously, that the court will now “ignore Venezuela’s illegal occupation of Ankoko island and other illegal territorial incursions.”
Again, this is not true. Venezuela’s illegal occupation of Guyana’s half of Ankoko island and all its illegal territorial incursions, as well as its attempted encroachment on Guyana’s maritime areas, are all based on its contention that the 1899 Award is invalid.  Once the court upholds the validity of the 1899 Award, Venezuela can no longer claim any part of Guyana’s sovereign territory, including Ankoko as well maritime areas off the Essequibo coast.

Finally, based on these series of misrepresentations, Dr. Ramcharan argues that Guyana must now “make an application for rectification of the decision of the court, or face the risk of Venezuela opportunistically exploiting the gift that the World Court has recklessly handed them.”

First, if he had read the Rules of the Court, he would know that a decision cannot be appealed, and anyhow, that it makes no sense to appeal a decision that is entirely in Guyana’s favour!  Second, if Venezuela was handed such a precious gift, why did it immediately reject the decision?  Perhaps after reading Dr. Ramcharan’s opinion, Venezuela might reconsider its position, now that a fellow Guyanese has given them a new interpretation they didn’t think of when reading the judgment.

It is difficult to see how this historic victory for Guyana is a “reckless” decision by the World Court, composed of the most distinguished judges elected by the United Nations.  The only recklessness here is that of Dr. Ramcharan, who seeks to manipulate the Guyanese public into questioning what is widely recognised as a turning point in the protection of our national sovereignty.  It is highly unfortunate that a Guyanese mind is used to discredit an extraordinary achievement that all Guyanese, from every political party, race, religion, and ethnicity, have supported unconditionally.

With a favourable decision on jurisdiction, Guyana is now poised to soon have a judgment from the world’s highest court that will forever put to rest Venezuela’s unjust claims to 75 per cent of our territory.  Surely, this is a cause for celebration.  Let’s put aside the pettiness and go forward as One People and One Nation with One Destiny.